Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015

Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015

Favorable Tectonic and Structural Settings of Geothermal Systems in the Great Basin
Region, Western USA: Proxies for Discovering Blind Geothermal Systems
James E. Faulds and Nicholas H. Hinz
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
jfaulds@unr.edu

Keywords: Great Basin, Nevada, Structural Control, Blind System, Step-over, Fault Tip, Accommodation Zone

ABSTRACT
We recently completed a comprehensive inventory of the structural settings of known geothermal systems (426 total, ≥37°C) in the
extensional to transtensional terrane of the Great Basin region in the western USA. Of the known systems, ~39% are blind (no
surface hot springs or fumaroles), but estimates suggest that as much as 75% of the geothermal resources in the region are blind.
The density of geothermal systems and capacity of power plants correlate generally with tectonic strain rates. However, high-
enthalpy geothermal activity is restricted to regions of extensional to transtensional strain, particularly the northwestern part of the
Great Basin directly northeast of the dextral shear zone of the Walker Lane and pull-apart zones within both the Walker Lane and
San Andreas fault system. We catalogued systems into eight major groups, based on the dominant pattern of faulting. Of the nearly
250 categorized geothermal fields, we found that step-overs or relay ramps in normal fault zones are the most favorable setting,
hosting ~32% of the systems. Such areas are characterized by multiple, commonly overlapping fault strands, increased fracture
density, and thus enhanced permeability. Other common settings include a) normal fault terminations (25%), where horse-tailing
generates a myriad of closely-spaced faults and thus increased permeability; and b) fault intersections between two normal faults or
between normal faults and transverse oblique-slip faults (22%), where multiple minor faults typically connect major structures and
fluids can flow readily through highly fractured, dilational quadrants. Less common settings include: a) accommodation zones
(9%); b) displacement transfer zones (5%); c) pull-aparts in strike-slip faults (3%); d) bends in normal faults (2%); and e) major
range-front normal faults (1%). Pull-aparts and displacement transfer zones are more abundant in the transtensional western part of
the Great Basin. Quaternary faults typically lie within or near most of the geothermal systems. Geothermal systems are rare along
major range-front faults, possibly due to both reduced permeability in thick zones of clay gouge and periodic release of stress in
major earthquakes. Step-overs, terminations, intersections, and accommodation zones correspond to long-term, critically stressed
areas, where fluid pathways would more likely remain open in networks of closely-spaced, breccia-dominated fractures. Notably,
many higher enthalpy systems are hybrids and contain more than one type of favorable setting (e.g. fault intersection within broad
accommodation zone). These data can guide exploration strategies, especially for blind or hidden systems.

1. INTRODUCTION
Better characterization of known geothermal systems is critical for discovering new systems, expansion of known systems,
selecting the best sites and development strategy for engineered geothermal systems (EGS), and reducing the risks in drilling in all
systems. This is especially important in the Great Basin of the western USA, where most of the geothermal systems are not related
to upper crustal magmatic heat sources but are instead fault-controlled. Moreover, the bulk of the geothermal systems (~75%) may
have little or no surface manifestation (i.e. blind or hidden; Coolbaugh et al., 2006), and thus techniques must be developed to
indicate the most favorable locations for targeting subsurface resources. Our approach has been to 1) relate the density of known
systems and capacity of existing power plants to tectonic settings and regional strain rates, and 2) characterize and catalogue
geothermal systems on the basis of the prominent fault pattern or structural setting (e.g., Faulds et al., 2011, 2012). These syntheses
have been bolstered by detailed studies of individual representative systems across the region (e.g. Faulds and Melosh, 2008;
Faulds et al., 2010; Hinz et al., 2008, 2010, 2011; Rhodes et al., 2010; Dering and Faulds, 2012; Edwards and Faulds, 2012; Siler et
al., 2012; Anderson and Faulds, 2013). In this paper, we review the relations between tectonic strain rates and geothermal activity
and summarize results of developing a catalogue of favorable structural settings for >400 geothermal systems in the Great Basin
region.

2. REGIONAL SETTING
Western North America contains a diffuse plate boundary, characterized by dextral motion between the Pacific and North American
plates (e.g. Atwater and Stock, 1998) and west- to northwest-directed extension within the Basin and Range province (e.g.
Wernicke, 1992). Much of dextral plate motion is taken up by the Queen Charlotte and San Andreas fault systems, including a
system of pull-aparts within the Gulf of California and Salton Trough of southern California. However, within the western USA,
the San Andreas fault system accommodates only ~80% of the plate motion. The other ~20% is distributed across the western
Great Basin in a system of dextral faults known as the Walker Lane in the north and eastern California shear zone in the south (e.g.
Faulds and Henry, 2008; Kreemer et al., 2009). In concert with the San Andreas fault terminating northward at the Mendocino
triple junction, the Walker Lane dies out northwestward in northwest Nevada-northeast California. A broad zone of active
extension stretches eastward across the Great Basin region from the Sierra Nevada and Walker Lane in eastern California to the
Wasatch Front in Utah (Figure 1).

Although geothermal systems are spread across the entire actively extending Great Basin region (Figure 1), they are most abundant
in discrete belts along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range (Wasatch Front) in western Utah and southeastern Idaho and in
western to north-central Nevada within and directly northeast of the Walker Lane. The loci of geothermal activity in the Great
Basin largely correlate with regions of higher strain rates, as derived from GPS geodetic data. Enhanced extension and dilation
within the northwestern Great Basin probably results from the northwestward termination of the Walker Lane and diffusion of
1
Faulds and Hinz

~1cm/yr of dextral shear into west-northwest directed extension (Faulds et al., 2004). High-temperature systems in particular
cluster within the zones of highest strain directly northeast of the Walker Lane, as well as in areas of recent magmatism or in
transtensional pull-apart basins along the Walker Lane or San Andreas fault system.

The capacity of geothermal power plants also correlates with strain rates, with the largest (hundreds of megawatts) along the
Walker Lane or transtensional/magmatic parts of the primary Pacific-North American plate boundary (e.g. Salton Trough and the
Geysers), where strain rates range from 10-100 nanostrain/yr to 1,000 nanostrain/yr, respectively. Lesser systems (tens of
megawatts) reside in the Great Basin region of the Basin and Range province (outside the Walker Lane), where local strain rates are
typically < 10 nanostrain/yr.

Figure 1: Density of known geothermal systems (≥37°C) in the Great Basin region plotted on a map showing strain rates.
Density contours were derived from a kernel probability estimate in which the distribution of geothermal systems
was evaluated within a 50 km radius from a 5x5 km cell size within the Great Basin study area (white outline in
figure). This yielded a 0.00 to 0.29% probability range of a geothermal system per square kilometer in the study
area, average is 0.06%. Contours in this figure are at 0.05% intervals. Strain rates reflect the second invariant
strain rate tensor (10-9/yr; from Kreemer et al., 2012). Power plants and relative capacities are shown by stars.

3. FAVORABLE STRUCTURAL SETTINGS

Individual geothermal fields within the Great Basin region are primarily controlled by moderately to steeply dipping normal fault
zones (Benoit et al., 1982; Blackwell et al., 1999; Johnson and Hulen, 2002; Wannamaker, 2003; Waibel et al., 2003; Faulds et al.,
2
Faulds and Hinz.

2010). Regional assessments of structural controls in the Great Basin have shown that N- to NE-striking faults (N0oE-N60oE) are
the primary control for ~75% of the fields (Coolbaugh et al., 2002; Faulds et al., 2004). In the northwest Great Basin, the NNE-
striking controlling faults are approximately orthogonal to the crustal extension direction. However, NNE-striking normal faults
abound in the Great Basin, and many show no signs of geothermal activity. Thus, it is important to determine which faults or
which segments of individual faults are most likely to host geothermal activity, especially in a region where the bulk of the
geothermal resources are likely blind or hidden.

We have therefore completed an inventory of the structural settings of geothermal systems in the Great Basin region. Of the 426
known systems, ~39% are blind with no surface hot springs or fumaroles. We catalogued systems into eight major groups, based
on the dominant pattern of faulting (Figure 2): 1) major normal fault segments (i.e., near displacement maxima), 2) fault bends, 3)
fault terminations or tips, 4) step-overs or relay ramps in normal faults, 5) fault intersections, 6) accommodation zones (i.e. belts of
intermeshing oppositely dipping normal faults), 7) displacement transfer zones whereby strike-slip faults terminate in arrays of
normal faults, and 8) transtensional pull-aparts. These settings form a hierarchal pattern with respect to fault complexity (Figure 2).
Major normal faults and fault bends are the simplest. Fault terminations are typically more complex than mid-segments, as faults
commonly break up into multiple strands or horsetail near their ends. Fault intersections are also complex, as they generally
contain both multiple fault strands and can include discrete dilational quadrants. A step-over consists of two overlapping fault
terminations and thus involves additional complexity, especially where the relay ramp is breached by multiple fault splays between
the main overlapping faults and thus contains multiple fault intersections. Accommodation zones involve further complexity, as
they consist of multiple fault terminations and fault intersections (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Characteristic structural settings for geothermal systems in the Great Basin region. A. Major normal fault. B.
Bend in major normal fault. C. Fault tip or termination with main fault breaking into multiple strands or
horsetailing. D. Fault step-over or relay ramp breached by minor connecting faults. E. Fault intersection. F.
Accommodation zone, consisting of belt of intermeshing oppositely dipping normal faults. G. Displacement transfer
zone, whereby major strike fault terminates in array of normal faults. G. Transtensional pull-apart in major strike-
slip fault zone.

Of the nearly 250 categorized geothermal fields (Figure 3), we found that step-overs or relay ramps in normal fault zones are the
most favorable setting, hosting ~32% of the systems. Such areas are characterized by multiple, commonly overlapping fault strands
(Figure 2D), increased fracture density, and thus enhanced permeability. Other common settings include a) normal fault
terminations (25%), where horse-tailing generates a myriad of closely-spaced faults (Figure 2C) and thus increased permeability;
and b) fault intersections between two normal faults or between normal faults and transverse oblique-slip faults (22%), where
multiple minor faults typically connect major structures and fluids can flow readily through highly fractured, dilational quadrants.
Less common settings include: a) accommodation zones (9%); b) displacement transfer zones (5%); c) pull-aparts in strike-slip
faults (3%); d) bends in normal faults (2%); and e) major range-front normal faults (1%). Pull-aparts and displacement transfer
zones are more abundant in the transtensional western part of the Great Basin. Quaternary faults typically lie within or near most of
the geothermal systems (Bell and Ramelli, 2007). We should note that the structural setting for ~25% of the systems could not be
3
Faulds and Hinz

determined. In most cases, undetermined systems reside in the central part of a basin (commonly warm wells), where geophysical
data are inadequate for elucidating the subsurface structure.

It is also noteworthy that many of the higher enthalpy systems are hybrids, meaning that they are characterized by more than one
type of favorable setting at a single locality (e.g. Steamboat, Brady’s, Coso, and Salt Wells). This is especially true for systems that
host geothermal power plants in the region. Of the 27 producing systems (Figure 2), 11 occupy step-overs (i.e., relay ramps,
~41%), 8 lie at fault intersections (~30%), and 7 occur in accommodation zones (~26%). Fault terminations, displacement transfer
zones, and pull-aparts each host ~11-14% of the systems (3 to 4 each). The total number in these counts exceeds the total number
of systems, because at least 10 (~37%) of the systems are hybrids and contain more than one type of structural setting. Notable
within this distribution is the large proportion of producing accommodation zones, which only represent ~9% of the total
geothermal fields in the Great Basin region, yet host ~26% of the producing systems. On the other hand, fault terminations account
for ~22% of the total systems in the Great Basin, but only host ~11% of the producing fields. Although this subset is relatively
small (only 27), the large amount of hybrids in the producing systems further demonstrates that structural complexity is one of the
most critical factors for geothermal activity in the Great Basin region. Overall, ~21% of the known geothermal fields are hybrid or
compound systems.

Figure 3: Structural settings of geothermal systems in the Great Basin region (white outline), as deduced in this study.
Major types of structural settings are shown on digital elevation model of the Great Basin and adjacent regions. See
Figure 2 and text for descriptions of structural settings. Red symbols – high-temperature systems (≥150°C); orange
symbols – low-temperature systems (<150°C); yellow circles represent known or inferred magmatic systems;
lavender circles are sites for operating geothermal power plants.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Regional tectonism appears to be the primary driving force for geothermal activity in the western USA, as evidenced by strong
correlations between strain rates and the distribution of geothermal fields (Figure 1). The correlation between strain rates and
4
Faulds and Hinz.

capacity of existing geothermal power plants further suggests that it may be possible to relate strain rate to geothermal potential.
However, higher strain rates do not automatically equate with resource potential. For example, higher strain along the San Andreas
fault system and Walker Lane-eastern California shear zone generally does not equate with geothermal activity, because strike-slip
faulting includes a component of shortening, which tends to restrict fluid flow. Large geothermal systems in these zones of dextral
shear appear to be restricted to transtensional pull-apart basins and/or to areas of recent volcanism (e.g. Salton Trough, The
Geysers, and Coso). It would appear that without recent magmatism, extensional or transtensional deformation is required to
generate a productive geothermal system (e.g. Blewitt et al., 2002, 2005; Faulds et al., 2004; Kreemer et al., 2006, Hammond et al.,
2007). Enhanced extension promotes both high heat flow and dilation on normal faults, thus inducing deep circulation of meteoric
waters and up-flow along fault zones.

We should stress that lower strain rates and the associated lower power-plant capacities in the Basin and Range (Figure 1) should
not deter exploration and development. Although systems with hundreds to thousands of megawatts seem unlikely in the Basin and
Range, the distribution of the known systems indicates strong potential for development of many additional systems in the tens of
megawatts range. Furthermore, relatively closely-spaced fault zones can host separate exploitable geothermal systems, whose
combined capacity can rival that of regions with higher strain rates, as exemplified in the northern Hot Springs Mountains in west-
central Nevada (Faulds et al., 2010).

Geothermal systems most commonly occur in belts of intermeshing, overlapping, or intersecting faults. Similar relations have been
observed in other extensional settings around the world (Curewitz and Karson, 1997), such as the Taupo volcanic zone in New
Zealand (Rowland and Sibson, 2004; Rowland and Simmons, 2012) and Aegean extensional province in western Turkey (Faulds et
al., 2009). Step-overs (relay ramps), terminations, intersections, and accommodation zones in fault systems correspond to long-
term, critically stressed areas, where fluid pathways are more likely to remain open in networks of closely-spaced, breccia-
dominated fractures. Although exceptions exist, geothermal systems are relatively rare along the displacement-maxima zones or
mid-segments of major normal faults (i.e., major range-front faults), possibly due to both reduced permeability in thick zones of
clay gouge and periodic release of stress in major earthquakes. These findings may help to guide geothermal exploration and aid in
development of the presumably vast amount of blind geothermal systems that underlie the Great Basin region.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was primarily funded by a DOE ARRA grant awarded to Faulds (grant number DE-EE0002748). Collaborations with
the geothermal industry, including Ormat Technologies, Navy Geothermal Technologies Office, U.S. Geothermal, Magma Energy,
Sierra Geothermal (now part of Ram Power Corporation), and Nevada Geothermal Power Company, have been beneficial to this
study. This research has also benefited from discussions with Mark Coolbaugh, Dick Benoit, Patrick Dobson, Lisa Shevenell,
Drew Siler, and many others.

REFERENCES
Anderson, R.B. and Faulds, J.E., 2013, Structural Controls of the Emerson Pass Geothermal System, Washoe County, Nevada:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 37, p. 453-458.
Atwater, T., and Stock, J., 1998, Pacific-North America plate tectonics of the Neogene southwestern United States - An update.
International Geology Reviews, v. 40, p. 375-402.
Bell, J.W. and Ramelli, A.R., 2007, Active faults and neotectonics at geothermal sites in the western Basin and Range: Preliminary
results: Geothermal Resources Council, v. 31, p. 375-378.
Benoit, W.R., Hiner, J.E., and Forest, R.T., 1982, Discovery and geology of the Desert Peak geothermal field: A case history:
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 97, 82 p.
Blackwell D, Wisian K, Benoit D, Gollan B., 1999, Structure of the Dixie Valley Geothermal System, a “Typical” Basin and Range
Geothermal system, From Thermal and Gravity Data: Geothermal Resource Council Transactions, v. 23, p. 525-531.
Blewitt, G., Coolbaugh, M., Holt, W., Kreemer, C., Davis, J., and Bennett, R., 2002, Targeting of potential geothermal resources in
the Great Basin from regional relationships between geodetic strain and geological structures: Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, v. 26, p. 523–526.
Blewitt, G., Hammond, W.C., and Kreemer, C., 2005, Relating geothermal resources to Great Basin tectonics using GPS:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 29, p. 331–336.
Coolbaugh, M.F., Taranik, J.V., Raines, G.L., Shevenell, L.A., Sawatzky, D.L., Minor, T.B., and Bedell, R., 2002, A geothermal
GIS for Nevada: defining regional controls and favorable exploration terrains for extensional geothermal systems: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 26, p. 485-490.
Coolbaugh, M.F., Raines, G.L., Zehner, R.E., Shevenell, L., and Williams, C.F., 2006, Prediction and discovery of new geothermal
resources in the Great Basin: Multiple evidence of a large undiscovered resource base: Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, v. 30, p. 867-873.
Curewitz, D. and Karson, J.A., 1997, Structural settings of hydrothermal outflow: fracture permeability maintained by fault
propagation and interaction: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 79, p. 149-168.
Dering, G. and Faulds, J., 2012, Structural controls of the Tuscarora geothermal field, Elko County, Nevada: Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 41-46.
Edwards, J., and Faulds, J.E., 2012, Preliminary assessment of the structural controls of Neal Hot Springs geothermal field,
Malheur County, Oregon: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 891-896.

5
Faulds and Hinz

Faulds, J.E., Coolbaugh, M., Blewitt, G., and Henry, C.D., 2004, Why is Nevada in hot water? Structural controls and tectonic
model of geothermal systems in the northwestern Great Basin: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, p. 649-654.
Faulds, J.E., and Henry, C.D., 2008, Tectonic influences on the spatial and temporal evolution of the Walker Lane: An incipient
transform fault along the evolving Pacific – North American plate boundary, in Spencer, J.E., and Titley, S.R., eds., Circum-
Pacific Tectonics, Geologic Evolution, and Ore Deposits: Tucson, Arizona Geological Society, Digest 22, p. 437-470.
Faulds, J.E. and Melosh, G., 2008, A Preliminary Structural Model for the Blue Mountain Geothermal Field, Humboldt County,
Nevada: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 32, p. 273-278.
Faulds, J.E., Bouchot, V., Moeck, I., and Oğuz, K., 2009, Structural controls of geothermal systems in western Turkey: A
preliminary report: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 33, p. 375-383.
Faulds, J.E., Coolbaugh, M.F., Benoit, D., Oppliger, G., Perkins, M., Moeck, I., and Drakos, P., 2010, Structural controls of
geothermal activity in the northern Hot Springs Mountains, western Nevada: The tale of three geothermal systems (Brady’s,
Desert Perk, Desert Queen): GRC Transactions, v. 34, p. 675-683.
Faulds, J.E., Coolbaugh, M.F., Hinz, N.H., Cashman, P.H., and Kratt, C., Dering, G., Edwards, J., Mayhew, B., and McLachlan, H.,
2011, Assessment of favorable structural settings of geothermal systems in the Great Basin, western USA: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 35, p. 777-784.
Faulds, J.E., Hinz, N.H., Kreemer, C., and Coolbaugh, M.F., 2012, Regional patterns of geothermal activity in the Great Basin
region, western USA: Correlation with strain rates: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 897-902.
Hammond, W.C, Kreemer, C., and Blewitt, G., 2007, Exploring the relationship between geothermal resources and geodetically
inferred faults slip rates in the Great Basin: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 31, p. 391-395.
Hinz, N.H., Faulds, J.E., Oppliger, G.L., 2008, Structural controls of Lee-Allen Hot Springs, southern Churchill County, western
Nevada: A small pull-apart in the dextral shear zone of the Walker Lane: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 32,
p. 285-290.
Hinz, N. H., Faulds, J. E., Moeck, I., Bell, J.W., and Oldow, J.S., 2010, Structural controls of three blind geothermal resources at
the Hawthorne Ammunitions Depot, west-central Nevada: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 34, p. 785-790.
Hinz, N.H., Faulds, J.E., and Bell, J.W., 2011, Preliminary geologic map of the Bunejug Mountains Quadrangle, Churchill County,
Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 11-9, scale 1:24,000.
Johnson, S.D., and Hulen, J.B., 2002, Subsurface stratigraphy, structure, and alteration in the Senator thermal area, northern Dixie
Valley geothermal field, Nevada: Transactions Geothermal Resource Council, v. 26, p. 533-542.
Kreemer, C., Blewitt, G., and Hammond, W.C., 2006, Using geodesy to explore correlations between crustal deformation
characteristics and geothermal resources: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 30, p. 441-446.
Kreemer, C., Blewitt, G., and, Hammond, W.C., 2009, Geodetic constraints on contemporary deformation in the northern Walker
Lane: 2. Velocity and strain rate tensor analysis, in Late Cenozoic Structure and Evolution of the Great Basin-Sierra Nevada
Transition, eds. J.S. Oldow, and P.H. Cashman, Geological Society of America Special Volume 447, p. 17-31.
Kreemer, C., Hammond, W.C., Blewitt, G., Holland, A.A., and Bennett, R.A., 2012, A geodetic strain rate model for the Pacific-
North American plate boundary, western United States: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 178.
Rhodes, G.T., Faulds, J.E., and Teplow, W., 2010, Structural controls of the San Emidio Desert geothermal field, northwestern
Nevada: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 34, p. 819-822.
Rowland, J.V., and Sibson, R.H., 2004, Structural controls on hydrothermal flow in a segmented rift system, Taupo volcanic zone,
New Zealand: Geofluids, v. 4, p. 259-283.
Rowland, J.V., and Simmons, S.F., 2012, Hydrologic, magmatic, and tectonic controls on hydrothermal flow, Taupo Volcanic
Zone, New Zealand: Implications for the formation of epithermal vein deposits: Economic Geology, v. 107, p. 427-457.
Siler, D., Mayhew, B., and Faulds, J.E., 2012, Three-dimensional geologic characterization of geothermal systems: Astor Pass,
Nevada, USA: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 36, p. 783-786.
Waibel, A., Blackwell, D., and Ellis, R., 2003, The Humboldt House-Rye Patch geothermal district: An interim view: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 27, p. 33-36.
Wannamaker, P.E., 2003, Initial results of magnetotelluric array surveying at the Dixie Valley geothermal area, with implications
for structural controls and hydrothermal alteration: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 27, p. 37-40.
Wernicke, B., 1992, Cenozoic extensional tectonics of the U.S. Cordillera, in Burchfiel, B.C., Lipman, P.W. and Zoback, M.L.,
eds., The Cordilleran orogen: conterminous U.S.: Boulder, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v.
G-3, p. 553-581.